As someone who tries to eat less meat in general because climate change and cows are basically giant grass eating slightly smellier dogs, I cannot take anyone who unironically uses “carnist” and “bloodmouth” seriously from that point on.
The more names you use to describe “person who eats meat” that you think are insulting and derogatory, the more people roll their eyes and move on with their planned meal.
Also when they add extraneous hyperbole to invalidate themselves.
No, there’s nothing sweet or savory about rotting meat, but it isn’t rotting, now is it?People that eat meat do not eat rotting carcasses (RFK aside) the same way vegans don’t eat rotten vegetables.
This isn’t meant to be an “achktually”, just a bit of trivia on the process of how we prepare meat.
And why, their hyperbole is actually even dumber than you think once you know the process.
After we kill an animal, it is left to hang for a couple of days depending on temperature. And it is so oxygen can interact and the meat starts to break down a bit, it decays. It’s slowly rotting. And there’s a fine balance between decay and bacteria growth. Simplified. The closer you are to that line, and the longer it can hang, the more tender it will be.
E.g. wild game is suggested to hang for at least 40 “day temperature”. So if the average temperature is 5 degrees Celcius, it needs to hang for 8 days. 5*8=40. If the average temperature is lower, it hangs for longer. It’s generally believed you need at least 2 degrees for the decay process to happen the way we want to. And if you start to reach 10 degrees, you have a much higher risk of bacteria growth. (These are in the context of average temperatures, hanging outdoors)
I don’t know the ins and outs of beef or pork, but the principle is the same. And today, I would assume all slaughter-houses have large stable rooms where the temperature and airflow is controlled down to the decimals.
So… I’d say yeah, the sight of a cut of meat, prepared in a highly controlled decay process. Is incredibly savory. Because you know it’s gonna be tender as hell!
Ummmm, rotting meat can be “sweet” due to decay as in “the sweet smell of rotting meat”. Don’t think that you should eat it when its that off, but yeah I don’t get how rotting is an insult here.
Yeah I’m basically in the same boat. I call myself a half assed vegetarian - I don’t typically buy meat for myself but if I go somewhere and meat’s already been ordered I won’t make a big fuss. I think meat is bad for the environment and cruel to the animals, and want people to care more about that, but it’s an emotional issue that needs to be handled as such.
It is annoying that some people are so emotionally invested in meat that it’s a hot button triggering topic, but that’s how it is.
Some left wing people will call the USA like “burgerland” or “ameriKKKa” and I’m just like that’s not going to win any converts. People who aren’t already firmly in your camp are going to stop listening.
Extremism definitely pushes reasonable people away from any group.
Humans are generalizers at our core. We will assume everyone in a group is like the worst member of a group and move on without a conscious thought on the matter.
I know you’re arguing in bad faith, but let’s pretend you’re not:
Seeing as you weren’t aware, the “default” for most cultures is meat-eating. So most people automatically start life with “us” being meat-eaters and “them” being non-meat-eaters.
I’m still going to call out meateaters for being obnoxious and pushy, and cite it as a reason that I won’t eat meat simply to illustrate how ridiculous they are being.
I don’t respect double standards and do not feel bound to them.
if you’re very passionate about something it’s easy to use strong words, and i think while it’s annoying to me it’s generally acceptable if used like this. I can’t personally develop any strong feelings about vegetarianism or veganism, but I’ve had my passionate political moments in my life (and still do sometimes) and I guess it’s kind of respect worthy, at least when I myself can see the logic of the argument or even agree to an extent.
Used to be I would get pretty frenzied when confronted with what I could fathom about capitalism, so I can empathize.
“Bloodmouth” is clearly trying to be a slur (although it’s the first time I see the term). “Carnist” however is just a neologism with meaning “someone who eats meat as part of their alimentation”.
Words exist to convey meaning, that’s all. Now vegans or vegetarians can be aggressive towards carnists, that’s for sure. Nothing to do with vocabulary.
I don’t deny the existence of slurs or hate speech (like “bloodmouth”). In this particular case, “carnist” is an academic word used in scientific papers in a sociological context.
Like I said in the other thread, it’s describing the opposite of vegetarianism and veganism. “Omnivorous” was proposed as an alternative, but it’s initially understood as “digesting plant and animal matter” in zoology, which would technically include vegetarians.
There is a need for a name that excludes vegans and vegetarians to describe reality.
Sorry for the Godwin point, but fascism is also an academic word used to describe a real political movement and fascists hate being called fascists. I’m myself eating meat so I don’t want to draw parallels here.
Then what word would you like people to use for “person eating meat as part of their alimentation”? I ask in good faith, I’m really curious to know your opinion.
I don’t think that “meat-eater” is necessarily better than “carnist” 😕 Or a negative like “non-vegeterian”? A bit of a mouthful.
Alright, that’s pretty good. I wanna nitpick by saying that vegetarians are also omnivorous because omnivorous is digesting “plant and animal matter”, but I don’t know if it would be in good faith :p Thanks for the discussion.
Okay I had a look and, you’re right. Apparently it’s an academic word in sociology meaning “prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.” So it’s not the practice, it’s the way of thinking.
It’s a term vegans developed and marketed to label their out group.
Whenever anyone labels an out group, they are doing so to feel superior. Considering people already felt vegans have an heir of superiority, the term acts to reinforce this notion.
Vegans that use the term are not smart people. They are displaying an inability to apply logic and reasoning to move their cause forward. Indicating they did not use logic and reasoning to make their decision but rather emotions. Emotions which they then attempt to deploy in an effort to manipulate others. They do not understand that not everyone is as easily emotionally manipulated.
They will of course backfill their choice with dogma from the movement. But they do not lead with that dogma because it is not how they became one.
Why didn’t carnists come up with their own term for themselves? Vegans made up a name for themselves. If carnists come up with a term for carnists and market it, vegans will probably use it.
I don’t know the other user, but this is irrelevant to this conversation.
Omnivore is biological designation of the type of foods that our bodies are biologically equipped to handle. Note that “capable of eating/digesting meat” does not mean must eat meat. Animals in that category would be “obligate carnivores.”
“Meateater” is probably the more common term for someone who makes the lifestyle choice to consume animal products. But “carnist” is intended to encompass non-food uses (e.g. wearing leather). While it may be used as a pejorative by the vegan community, any term is likely to be used that way (including omnivore or meateater) when describing a group that one views with contempt.
But veganism can use leather and eat meat in the appropriate circumstances come to think of it.
Edit: just to be clear, this was something I was told by other Vegans, including in person. Roadkill or an existing carcass of an animal that dies naturally for example are fine.
No, drag’s not a troll, just an ordinary trans person with unusual pronouns. If anyone here is outraged about trans people literally just minding their own business, it isn’t drag. It would have to be someone who brought up neopronouns just to complain about them.
Everyone knows you’re a troll. The whole “drag” bit is just the “I identify as an attack helicopter” but just subtle enough so as to make it easy to pretend it’s real.
It’s absolutely amazing you’ve been able to keep this going for so long.
Ahhh, you are that person that misrepresents trans people and makes them look bad on purpose! You just forgot your schtick for a moment. Nevermind then, your opinion is meaningless.
Yea man, finding out that Drag is a vegan surprised no one. It’s just another moral high ground to argue with Internet strangers from to feel better about what I imagine is a very uninteresting life.
I doubt they’re either trans or vegan. I think they’re one of those right wing folk who just like to make minorities look bad, like that goyper who started that whole kid furries ask for litterboxes at school thing.
Yeah, but vegans also don’t use animal products as well (and sometimes products that may hurt animals secondarily) so it’s a descriptor for not just diet but lifestyle. And vegetarianism allows for animal byproducts but not meat, so also not omnivorous I think?
Carnist is just the word for people who eat meat, it’s not vegans’ fault you decided it’s an insult. Suggest a non insulting word.
You:
Omnivore
Me:
(Well Carnivore would be meat only, Omivore is everything, Herbivore is veg only. But yeah.)
Were we not having a discussion on the correct word for meat eater, which would be carnivore? I’m confused
Nonetheless, -vore as a root word means devour, carni- means flesh/meat, omni- means all, and herb- means, well, herbs. These words all only describe the animal by their diet, not also their sociological choices.
Yea reminds me of people who think it’s an epic own to say they’ll eat two steaks instead when talking to vegans. Congrats on worsening your health I guess (among other things)
As someone who tries to eat less meat in general because climate change and cows are basically giant grass eating slightly smellier dogs, I cannot take anyone who unironically uses “carnist” and “bloodmouth” seriously from that point on.
The more names you use to describe “person who eats meat” that you think are insulting and derogatory, the more people roll their eyes and move on with their planned meal.
Also when they add extraneous hyperbole to invalidate themselves.
No, there’s nothing sweet or savory about rotting meat, but it isn’t rotting, now is it?People that eat meat do not eat rotting carcasses (RFK aside) the same way vegans don’t eat rotten vegetables.
This isn’t meant to be an “achktually”, just a bit of trivia on the process of how we prepare meat.
And why, their hyperbole is actually even dumber than you think once you know the process.
After we kill an animal, it is left to hang for a couple of days depending on temperature. And it is so oxygen can interact and the meat starts to break down a bit, it decays. It’s slowly rotting. And there’s a fine balance between decay and bacteria growth. Simplified. The closer you are to that line, and the longer it can hang, the more tender it will be.
E.g. wild game is suggested to hang for at least 40 “day temperature”. So if the average temperature is 5 degrees Celcius, it needs to hang for 8 days. 5*8=40. If the average temperature is lower, it hangs for longer. It’s generally believed you need at least 2 degrees for the decay process to happen the way we want to. And if you start to reach 10 degrees, you have a much higher risk of bacteria growth. (These are in the context of average temperatures, hanging outdoors)
I don’t know the ins and outs of beef or pork, but the principle is the same. And today, I would assume all slaughter-houses have large stable rooms where the temperature and airflow is controlled down to the decimals.
So… I’d say yeah, the sight of a cut of meat, prepared in a highly controlled decay process. Is incredibly savory. Because you know it’s gonna be tender as hell!
Ummmm, rotting meat can be “sweet” due to decay as in “the sweet smell of rotting meat”. Don’t think that you should eat it when its that off, but yeah I don’t get how rotting is an insult here.
Yeah I’m basically in the same boat. I call myself a half assed vegetarian - I don’t typically buy meat for myself but if I go somewhere and meat’s already been ordered I won’t make a big fuss. I think meat is bad for the environment and cruel to the animals, and want people to care more about that, but it’s an emotional issue that needs to be handled as such.
It is annoying that some people are so emotionally invested in meat that it’s a hot button triggering topic, but that’s how it is.
Some left wing people will call the USA like “burgerland” or “ameriKKKa” and I’m just like that’s not going to win any converts. People who aren’t already firmly in your camp are going to stop listening.
Extremism definitely pushes reasonable people away from any group.
Humans are generalizers at our core. We will assume everyone in a group is like the worst member of a group and move on without a conscious thought on the matter.
So the extremism of the meat industry is pushing people away from eating meat?
I’m still waiting to see this play out.
I know you’re arguing in bad faith, but let’s pretend you’re not:
Seeing as you weren’t aware, the “default” for most cultures is meat-eating. So most people automatically start life with “us” being meat-eaters and “them” being non-meat-eaters.
I’m still going to call out meateaters for being obnoxious and pushy, and cite it as a reason that I won’t eat meat simply to illustrate how ridiculous they are being.
I don’t respect double standards and do not feel bound to them.
K
It indeed is ok. I have zero incentive to not flip the script.
Thank you for your support!
K
No the really annoying vegans make some people less sympathetic to the vegan cause
So it would follow that really annoying meat eaters make some people less interested in eating meat.
I’m going to really start leaning into this.
if you’re very passionate about something it’s easy to use strong words, and i think while it’s annoying to me it’s generally acceptable if used like this. I can’t personally develop any strong feelings about vegetarianism or veganism, but I’ve had my passionate political moments in my life (and still do sometimes) and I guess it’s kind of respect worthy, at least when I myself can see the logic of the argument or even agree to an extent.
Used to be I would get pretty frenzied when confronted with what I could fathom about capitalism, so I can empathize.
“Bloodmouth” is clearly trying to be a slur (although it’s the first time I see the term). “Carnist” however is just a neologism with meaning “someone who eats meat as part of their alimentation”.
Words exist to convey meaning, that’s all. Now vegans or vegetarians can be aggressive towards carnists, that’s for sure. Nothing to do with vocabulary.
Ugh I hate this attitude. People that say “words are just words” have never had a slur yelled inches from their face.
If words are just words, then what is hate speech?
I don’t deny the existence of slurs or hate speech (like “bloodmouth”). In this particular case, “carnist” is an academic word used in scientific papers in a sociological context.
Like I said in the other thread, it’s describing the opposite of vegetarianism and veganism. “Omnivorous” was proposed as an alternative, but it’s initially understood as “digesting plant and animal matter” in zoology, which would technically include vegetarians.
There is a need for a name that excludes vegans and vegetarians to describe reality.
Sorry for the Godwin point, but fascism is also an academic word used to describe a real political movement and fascists hate being called fascists. I’m myself eating meat so I don’t want to draw parallels here.
Vocabulary has a lot to do with it, no one wants to be called a slur and they use carnist as a slur
Then what word would you like people to use for “person eating meat as part of their alimentation”? I ask in good faith, I’m really curious to know your opinion.
I don’t think that “meat-eater” is necessarily better than “carnist” 😕 Or a negative like “non-vegeterian”? A bit of a mouthful.
Omnivore is pretty neutral
Alright, that’s pretty good. I wanna nitpick by saying that vegetarians are also omnivorous because omnivorous is digesting “plant and animal matter”, but I don’t know if it would be in good faith :p Thanks for the discussion.
deleted by creator
that is not what it means
Okay I had a look and, you’re right. Apparently it’s an academic word in sociology meaning “prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.” So it’s not the practice, it’s the way of thinking.
Carnist is just the word for people who eat meat, it’s not vegans’ fault you decided it’s an insult. Suggest a non insulting word.
It’s a term vegans developed and marketed to label their out group.
Whenever anyone labels an out group, they are doing so to feel superior. Considering people already felt vegans have an heir of superiority, the term acts to reinforce this notion.
Vegans that use the term are not smart people. They are displaying an inability to apply logic and reasoning to move their cause forward. Indicating they did not use logic and reasoning to make their decision but rather emotions. Emotions which they then attempt to deploy in an effort to manipulate others. They do not understand that not everyone is as easily emotionally manipulated.
They will of course backfill their choice with dogma from the movement. But they do not lead with that dogma because it is not how they became one.
Why didn’t carnists come up with their own term for themselves? Vegans made up a name for themselves. If carnists come up with a term for carnists and market it, vegans will probably use it.
Omnivore?
That’s a scientific term, not a lifestyle choice
Wait, you’re the troll who insists being called drag is the same as someone trans wanting to be called s/he, aren’t you?
Yep. The one and the same. It’s unbelievable that they’re still around with the same username. The admins of their instance just don’t give a shit.
I don’t know the other user, but this is irrelevant to this conversation.
Omnivore is biological designation of the type of foods that our bodies are biologically equipped to handle. Note that “capable of eating/digesting meat” does not mean must eat meat. Animals in that category would be “obligate carnivores.”
“Meateater” is probably the more common term for someone who makes the lifestyle choice to consume animal products. But “carnist” is intended to encompass non-food uses (e.g. wearing leather). While it may be used as a pejorative by the vegan community, any term is likely to be used that way (including omnivore or meateater) when describing a group that one views with contempt.
But veganism can use leather and eat meat in the appropriate circumstances come to think of it.
Edit: just to be clear, this was something I was told by other Vegans, including in person. Roadkill or an existing carcass of an animal that dies naturally for example are fine.
No, drag’s not a troll, just an ordinary trans person with unusual pronouns. If anyone here is outraged about trans people literally just minding their own business, it isn’t drag. It would have to be someone who brought up neopronouns just to complain about them.
Everyone knows you’re a troll. The whole “drag” bit is just the “I identify as an attack helicopter” but just subtle enough so as to make it easy to pretend it’s real.
It’s absolutely amazing you’ve been able to keep this going for so long.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun
No. You’re a troll.
Ahhh, you are that person that misrepresents trans people and makes them look bad on purpose! You just forgot your schtick for a moment. Nevermind then, your opinion is meaningless.
Yea man, finding out that Drag is a vegan surprised no one. It’s just another moral high ground to argue with Internet strangers from to feel better about what I imagine is a very uninteresting life.
I doubt they’re either trans or vegan. I think they’re one of those right wing folk who just like to make minorities look bad, like that goyper who started that whole kid furries ask for litterboxes at school thing.
God forbid trans people talk about something other than being trans
(Well Carnivore would be meat only, Omivore is everything, Herbivore is veg only. But yeah.)
Yeah, but vegans also don’t use animal products as well (and sometimes products that may hurt animals secondarily) so it’s a descriptor for not just diet but lifestyle. And vegetarianism allows for animal byproducts but not meat, so also not omnivorous I think?
Drag:
You:
Me:
Were we not having a discussion on the correct word for meat eater, which would be carnivore? I’m confused
Nonetheless, -vore as a root word means devour, carni- means flesh/meat, omni- means all, and herb- means, well, herbs. These words all only describe the animal by their diet, not also their sociological choices.
wrong in every way possible
That’s not even what carnist means…
Sounds like the anti-woke sentiment of being more racist in spite, because some doesn’t like being called out for their behaviour.
Would you prefer the rational argument, that the meat industry fuels climate change and speeds up the destruction of our planet?
… they literally raised that point.
Oh wow, I am dumb. 😂
Yea reminds me of people who think it’s an epic own to say they’ll eat two steaks instead when talking to vegans. Congrats on worsening your health I guess (among other things)
My reflexive response is “no you won’t.” If they wanted 2 steaks, they were going to do so regardless.
If people were so easily manipulated, then I would start leaning heavily into reverse psychology.